The Revolution Will Not Be Twitterised

4chan seems to have been in the news a lot recently, and the /b/tards have been presented in a rather more sympathetic light than hitherto. I’m used to thinking of 4chan in terms of Lolcats and trolls, a place I’m aware of but would never admit familiarity with, at least in polite company. (Though naturally I’ve always had a soft spot for their war on Scientology). It jars a little then to see the Anonymous masses described as “internet activists” who have apparently developed some sort of social conscience.

The immediate cause of this rehabilitation, around here at least, seems to have been 4chan’s role in tracking down the infamous kitty-binner, a popular move in our pet-loving nation. They followed this up with something more substantial; going after ACS:Law, the UK lawyers notorious for their intimidation of alleged file-sharers. (Ars Technica has an excellent dissection of ACS’s reprehensible shakedown scheme). 4chan’s “Operation Payback” looks like it may put the final nail in the coffin of aggressive copyright enforcement, in the UK anyway, which can only be a good thing for both consumers and content creators, if not for lawyers.

Any romanticisation of the 4chan crowd as mischievous scamps who stand up for the little guy and stick it to the Man is obviously absurd, but it does tie in with a more general idea that the internet, and social media in particular, have levelled the political playing field, and given the ordinary citizen a weapon to wield against the power elites who run the world. One hears this from all sides; Peter Ludlow had an article in the The Nation this month on “Hacktivism”, specifically referencing Wikileaks and 4chan, over at World Affairs they think that Twitter will bring down the Chinese government, and Tea Party organisers laud the power of Facebook.

Perhaps I am just too wedded to old Bolshevik notions of the vanguard party, but I am very sceptical about all of this. While the web may be able to facilitate ad hoc attacks like “Operation Payback”, the sort of sustained campaign that would be needed to really change society requires a central organisation to give operational and, more importantly, political direction to the movement.

Substituting diffuse social media links for a more traditional party structure seems attractive, but I think it may be counterproductive. It might feel like one is part of a collaborative enterprise, but it is more atomised than it looks, and there is little opportunity to develop a collective consciousness. The Twitterverse has no effective memory, and there is no mechanism for a social media movement to learn from its experience. These things – pooling knowledge and experience, remembering mistakes and lessons, passing it all on to new generations – are the functions of a revolutionary party, and I can’t see that there is any way to replicate them virtually.

Internet activism can burn bright, and it has the potential to score transient victories, but I think it lacks the stamina for the long, hard slog that is the struggle to challenge entrenched power. If you want to change the world you have to face the truth:

You will not be able to stay home, brother.
You will not be able to plug in, turn on and cop out.

The rest is silence

Back in the days of my youth there existed a publication called Soviet Weekly, which one could buy from old tankies on demonstrations, or pick up from big piles that were left in the foyers of certain union offices. It carried uplifting stories about grain surpluses in the Ukraine, or record tractor production in Minsk, along with pictures of heroic cosmonauts, and smiling orphans enjoying free holidays on the Black Sea, all painting a picture of the workers’ paradise that was the Soviet Union. It was always detached from reality of course, and by the late 1980’s it had become completely surreal. Not long before the USSR finally fell apart Soviet Weekly disappeared, and even a few weeks later it was hard to imagine that it had ever existed at all. (It has vanished so completely there is hardly a trace of it on the internet; all I could find were a couple of scans and some old copies for sale on eBay).

I always imagined that the end came for Soviet Weekly when the strain of reconciling what was actually happening with the Party line plunged the editors into some sort of existential crisis, but actually it seems unlikely that anyone took an active decision to kill it off, such was the ossification of the Soviet bureaucracy by that time. The final blow was probably struck by something mundane, like the embassy running out of money to pay the printers, or the old Telex machine breaking down.

Anyway, I was thinking of this when I read that Hamlet Au was throwing in the towel at New World Notes and decamping to perennial next-big-thing Blue Mars.

I don’t want to suggest that Hamlet’s essentially harmless SL-boosting was ever the equivalent of glossing over the legacy of Stalinism, but I do wonder if, like the editors of Soviet Weekly, he eventually found the continuous demand to find positive things to write about a world that was crumbling around him just to difficult to sustain.

Upon the dismal shore of Acheron

While browsing at the AV Club the other day I came across a review of the film The Dungeon Masters, a documentary following the lives of three devoted D&D and LARP fans. It sounds fairly interesting, though the director’s main theme – “people in control of their fantasy lives aren’t in control of their real ones” – won’t win any prizes for originality.

More intriguing was a link I found in the comment section of the review, leading to this cautionary tale. Who knew that D&D could be so exciting? I played for years, and I never once got invited to join a coven of witches.

Looking around the Chick Publications site reminded me of when I was about 6 or 7. There was an old lady who stood outside the gate of our primary school at break time, handing out similar illustrated tracts. One story sticks in my mind to this day; a young boy has the temerity to question his pastor about the truth of the Bible, and the very next day he is hit by a speeding truck, sent to Hell and tortured by demons, all depicted in graphic detail. I guess she was sincere in her belief that it was necessary to put the fear of eternal damnation into the minds of young children in order to save them from evil doctrines like communism or evolution (not to mention Catholicism, Islam and, of course, homosexuality), but even at that tender age my reaction was to think that her religion was pretty messed up.

I sometimes wonder if this early experience was what put me off religion for life, but if memory serves (which it probably doesn’t) I was a confirmed unbeliever even before that. In fact I can’t remember a time when I ever had any sort of faith, which I’m not sure how to explain. I did grow up in a basically secular household, but my parents weren’t militant atheists or anything, and Christianity was part of the fabric of our community. I repeated the prayers at school assembly, went to church at Easter and Christmas and was generally exposed to the idea that being a Christian was the normal thing to do, but none of it ever clicked with me. In the years that have followed I have learned about many other religions and belief-systems, ancient and modern, but my interest has always been cultural rather than spiritual. I’ve never felt that there was any sort of void in me that yearned to be filled by religion, or that my lack of faith meant I was missing something. Perhaps I just don’t have the religious gene.

(I have been politically active most of my adult life, and pious types have often told me that I am sublimating my religious impulses in radicalism, that The Communist Manifesto is my bible, but I don’t think that’s the case at all. I don’t see politics as a moral issue, but more a technical question of how to efficiently organise society. I certainly don’t think that being a communist makes me a better person than anyone else, and I’m not expecting any eternal reward for my labours).

I don’t really have a point here; I’m just musing nostalgically. I’m definitely not suggesting that all Christians are hate-filled bigots; I’ve known plenty over the years and hardly any have been like Fred Phelps. Indeed one of the saving graces of the Christian faith is the fact that its adherents are mostly content to be fuzzy about the details of doctrine. Even the Pope thinks that non-believers can go to heaven, which, to my mind, seems hard to reconcile with John 14:6, but I guess that resolving such contradictions is what keeps theologians busy. (Personally, I’d probably pass on Paradise; I’ve always thought that the first circle of the Inferno sounded much more interesting). I imagine that the followers of other religions behave in a similar way; none of the Jews, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists that I know are particularly devout, though I’d have to admit that my deadbeat friends may not be entirely representative examples of their respective faiths.

I used to be more actively anti-religious in my younger days, and I would argue with people about how clearly nonsensical their beliefs were, but with age I have mellowed into a position of liberal secularism; I don’t care what people think or do in their homes and places of worship (or where they build those places of worship), as long as they keep their dogma out of the schoolroom, and don’t try to tell me who I can or cannot marry.

I still think that, on balance, religion is a pernicious influence on society, but no amount of reasoned discourse is going to make it disappear as long as the material conditions that underpin it persist. Everyone knows Marx’s comment about religion being “the opium of the people”, but the full quote is more illuminating:

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

If we ever make it to a society that is free of inequality and injustice, the illusion of religion will no longer be necessary, and it will fade into history. We will look upon Christianity and other modern faiths in the same way we regard the pantheons of the Greeks and Romans; interesting cultural phenomena that have no direct significance in our everyday lives. Whether I’ll be around to see that day is another question, but I can always live in hope.

Bloody Sunday

I marched on more than a few Bloody Sunday commemoration parades back in the day, when the war in Ireland was still very active. I remember how angry we were on those occasions, but for most of us it was a political rage rather than anger born out of personal experience, and as such it faded as the political situation changed and the grievances that had driven the protests were largely resolved.

Even so, Bloody Sunday was always a nagging memory, an injustice that wouldn’t fade away. The Saville Inquiry had dragged on for over a decade, but it has finally delivered confirmation of what we had always said; the killings on that day were an unjustifiable act of state terror.

Twenty years ago this result might have felt like a victory, but now, for me, it just seems like a piece of history. It’s good that the truth has come out of course, and important for the families of those who died, but it has happened much too late to make any difference to how the conflict unfolded.

Linden layoffs

Meanwhile, back in the virtual world, the news is rather downbeat too. As you will know by now, if you are interested in these things (as you must be if you are reading this), Linden Lab laid off around 100 employees this week, a third of their workforce, closing down their outlying offices and winding up the enterprise division.

I’m not one of those bloggers who affects to be on personal terms with the Lindens, so the list of redundancies means nothing to me, but apparently among the casualties are a VP, and various key staff in the technical, sales and marketing departments. The official spin is that the new configuration will allow the company to focus on its key objectives, but it’s hard to see such a level of cutbacks as anything other than a sign of corporate distress.

The response of the Second Life community to this news has been characteristically solipsistic, with a memorial garden set up where residents can show their grief for the fallen, since obviously our pain is the main story here. I suspect that the now-jobless Linden staffers may have appreciated a little practical solidarity more than such virtual gestures. I’m feeling a bit guilty that I never actually got round (so far at least) to organising a Second Life Communist Party, instead of just talking about it. We could have staged some sort of in-world protest, and our San Francisco comrades could have picketed the Lab’s offices or something. I hope the Lab’s remaining employees have seen the writing on the wall, and are getting themselves unionised.

What does this mean for the future of Second Life? The optimistic view is that the Lab is realigning itself with its core market, content to be a successful niche player rather than being hell-bent on expansion. My more pessimistic take is that the cuts are the desperate actions of a management that has no plan other than preparing the company for sale.

I’ve always been doubtful that the current Lab management knew what they were doing, and I think the ideal long-term outcome would involve M Linden turning the whole operation over to the residents, and letting us run it as a cooperative. I suspect though that he would rather see it fail than flirt with such a progressive ideal, and I’m not sure that many residents would be up for life as virtual communists either.

Time will tell I guess, but right now the $70 or so I paid for my last annual subscription is looking like one of my less smart investments.

Gaza Flotilla

I wrote this piece about a week ago, but I hesitated to post it, since its serious nature is out of keeping with the generally frivolous tone of this blog. I vaguely know a couple of people who were on board the Gaza flotilla though, and I figured that if they were willing to risk a bullet in the head, the least I could do was to show a little solidarity.

Since I’m coming to this late there’s probably no point in repeating the case for ending the Gaza blockade (even the US administration has come out against it) or going over the Israeli assault on the flotilla (you can read eyewitness accounts here and here, and watch unedited video here). Anyone who hasn’t thought about how the incident illuminates the nature of the Israeli state can read an insightful essay on the subject here.

The internet is supposed to have made it harder for the powerful to get away with outrages like this, by democratising the flow of information. That’s true to some extent, but it’s also the case that, thanks to the speed of modern communication, the old saying “‘A lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on” has never been more accurate. What’s even more disheartening is that the multiplicity of news sources doesn’t seem to have broadened minds – instead of seeing things from another point of view, people just shop around until they find a newsfeed that confirms their existing prejudices.

I guess I am as susceptible to this as anyone, though I do try to take in more than just Indymedia and the Weekly Worker. I tend to get my information via Google News, which usually links to a fair spectrum of opinion, though of course I must consciously and unconsciously select what I click on.

Looking in my browser history for the last few days I see the BBC, The Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph, The Independent, The Herald, The Scotsman, Salon, The LA Times, The New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor, The Houston Chronicle, Al Jazeera, Xinhua, AP, Reuters, AFP and the CBC. Now, Al Jazeera and Xinhua aside, I would characterise those outlets as largely conservative, western, mainstream media, which in theory should counterbalance my habitual far-left outlook, but in this case, none of the facts reported by any of these sources would seriously undermine the argument that Israel is guilty of an unjustified act of aggression.

Facts don’t always carry the day though, and exposure to information that challenges one’s existing opinions doesn’t necessarily change one’s mind. If anything the evidence suggests that it does just the opposite.

So maybe this post is a waste of time, since anyone who disagrees with the view that the Israeli state is out of control is unlikely to change their ideas after reading what I think. Still, I can hope that what I’ve written and linked to may go a little way towards convincing at least a few people to think about opposing the Gaza blockade, and supporting a just peace for Palestine.

Reality is overrated

Well, my sojourn in the real world turned out to be pretty depressing, sending me scurrying back to the synthetic succour of Second Life, to the comforting predictability of the rampant paranoia and gripes about the Lindens.

I guess that the new political situation will be taking up more of my real-life attention in the immediate future, but I’m going to try to keep it out of this blog, in favour of more inconsequential musings on SL culture and the like. I need to preserve a little oasis of fantasy in a world that looks set to become increasingly unforgiving.

Liberal betrayal

After six days of haggling we finally have a new Prime Minister. To no one’s great surprise it’s David Cameron, though at the head of a Conservative-Liberal coalition rather than a minority government. The Lib Dems evidently found the lure of high office irresistible, though they will no doubt talk nobly about “The National Interest” as they try to explain their sorry sell-out. I guess they must be confident that the concession they have extracted from the Tories on reforming the voting system – the promise of a referendum on AV – can be converted into some sort of concrete change before we all go to the polls again. In my view this is very optimistic – the Tory party (and a large part of the Labour party) are implacably opposed to PR in any form, and will surely work hard, along with their allies in the media, to ensure there is a “No” vote in any plebiscite on the issue.

In exchange for this vague nod towards reform, and perhaps other compromises on some details of economic policy that will emerge in time, the Lib Dems are identifying themselves with an administration that seems likely to embark on the most savage attack on working-class living standards in at least 30 years. The Tories may have made promises about protecting vital services, but now they are in power they will be able to claim that the public finances are in much worse state than they had thought, and push though cuts on a scale that no one has imagined. The Lib Dems may hope that their presence in government may put a brake on the worst of the Tory excesses, but in reality they will have no leverage other than threatening to quit the coalition and bring the government down, probably precipitating fresh elections in which they would risk being wiped out as disillusioned voters punished them for their perfidy.

Labour, in my opinion, has taken the sensible option of a spell in opposition, gathering strength for the next election, which may well be sooner rather than later. This of course does leave the population exposed to the depredations of the Tories, but the alternative – trying to hang on to power as part of an unstable “rainbow coalition” – would probably have ended with an early election and a Tory majority. The risk is of course that some external event will help the Tories get re-elected, in the way the Falklands war saved Thatcher from probable defeat in 1983, and condemn us to decades of misery.

There’s nothing else to be done now though, except to agitate and organise, and try to make the new government’s life as short and difficult as possible.

Election reaction

I stayed up until about 1 am this morning, when the early results seemed to be suggesting that the swing to the Tories would be enough to give them a slim majority, sending me to my bed in despair. I avoided listening to the radio first thing this morning, to put off the bad news, but when I did eventually tune in I found that my less gloomy predictions had in fact been more or less right as far as the national results go, apart from the Lib Dems only improving on their 2005 share of the vote by 1.0%, which, thanks to the vagaries of our electoral system, meant they actually ended up losing 5 seats rather than gaining the 20 to 30 they had hoped for. Labour were down 6.2% and the Tories up 3.8%, leaving them 20 seats short of a majority.

Up here in Scotland the Labour vote bucked the national trend by rising 2.5%, as their warnings of the threat of a Tory government resonated with an electorate that still remembers the horrors of the Thatcher years. The Tories stumbled to a single seat and 16.7% of the vote north of the border, compared to their national result of 36.1%, raising the question of whether a London Tory government has a mandate to rule Scotland, an issue that will undoubtedly have a major impact in the Scottish Parliament elections next year. That said, the SNP had a disappointing night, their rise of 2.3% less than they had hoped for, and overall the result in terms of seats was exactly what it had been in 2005.

There wasn’t much to cheer those to the left of Labour; the various organisations which stood candidates mostly polled under 2.0%, with Respect losing their only seat. Even the Greens only managed 1.0% nationally, though they did pull off the coup of winning their first seat, in Brighton. The far-right did a little better, with the BNP on 1.9% and UKIP on 3.1%, though they made no major breakthroughs.

Now the horse-trading has started, I’m still expecting the outcome to be a Tory minority government. The Lib Dems may turn out be a bit less attached to their principles once they get a sniff of actual power, but I think they would be reluctant to enter a formal Con-Lib coalition, if for no other reason than wanting to avoid being too closely associated with the Tories’ cuts agenda, which is bound to be enormously unpopular, when we might be returning to the polls in the not-too-distant future. Labour are going through the motions of tempting the Lib Dems with offers of electoral reform, but I wonder if their real strategy is to regroup in opposition in preparation for an election in 18 months or so. I expect Brown will have to resign, but I’m sure that reports of the death of the Labour as a party of government are very premature.

The Tories’ austerity measures, when they come, will surely generate a lot of opposition in working-class communities, so there will be opportunities for growing the left, though we clearly have our work cut out, not least because the fascists are waiting in the wings. The next couple of years could be one of those periods, like the early 80’s, where the political life of this country changes dramatically, and we have to do our best to make sure that this time round it’s for the better.

Trepidation

Well that’s my ballot cast (for the Communist Party, natch), so there’s nothing to do now but wait for the results. The exit polls will be out in less than an hour, and I’m pretty convinced that we’ll be looking at a Conservative victory.

I have no great love for the Labour Party, what with them invading Iraq, eroding civil liberties, letting the bankers destroy the economy and generally selling out every vaguely socialist principle they ever had, but I can’t help feeling a gnawing sense of dread at the prospect of a Tory government.

I’m old enough to remember how terrible the Thatcher years were, and with the economic situation the way it is, not to mention the decline of the left in the intervening years, we may be in for an even rougher ride this time round.